Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla Because it's a quote from a review.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @fbmac Was getting caught part of your plan?



  • This post is deleted!


  • @fbmac said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    @Maciejasjmj said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    Or just give Nolan a hell of a lot of money until he's physically unable to say "no". He knows what's good

    His third Batman movie sucked

    But without it, we wouldn't have
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSR1bbcxLpk


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @sloosecannon said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    Fuck Oracle.

    Since we're talking about DCU... certainly.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @masonwheeler Hmm, that might explain why I have next to no fix on any of this: Saturday mornings were orchestra practice for me. 🤷

    What the MCU got right with their films (eventually, after a very long string of duds) is that they started insisting on better scriptwriting and a good director. I'm not too keen on the whole linking everything together, but if the script is good and the director capable (and thus the other parts of the movie are working together right) then it can be quite reasonable. DC's problems have stemmed from forgetting those basic facts; a flick really ought to be decent entertainment in and of itself first and foremost.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @dkf said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    What the MCU got right with their films (eventually, after a very long string of duds) is that they started insisting on better scriptwriting and a good director.

    The major hit that started it all off, Iron Man, was almost pure improv, with only the basic highlights pre-scripted.



  • @masonwheeler said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    @dkf said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    What the MCU got right with their films (eventually, after a very long string of duds) is that they started insisting on better scriptwriting and a good director.

    The major hit that started it all off, Iron Man, was almost pure improv, with only the basic highlights pre-scripted.

    All sorts of stuff still gets improved into even the more recent movies.

    http://screenrant.com/best-marvel-movie-scenes-improvised/?view=all


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @masonwheeler said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    The major hit that started it all off, Iron Man, was almost pure improv, with only the basic highlights pre-scripted.

    Which takes me straight to my other point: the director. DC's had hits from time to time when they've had a good director, but Marvel seem to have realised that paying well to get what they want for their overall plans is a good investment.

    Also, improv doesn't necessarily make a movie great. Lots of arthouse says exactly that…



  • @dkf said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    @masonwheeler said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    The major hit that started it all off, Iron Man, was almost pure improv, with only the basic highlights pre-scripted.

    Also, improv doesn't necessarily make a movie great. Lots of arthouse says exactly that…

    You missed @masonwheeler's point. He was countering the point that there needs to be a good, strong script for a movie to be successful by pointing out that some improvised movies are highly successful.



  • This was hit on upthread, but I think one of the reasons MCU's doing so well comparatively is that they actually branch out and build off what they have, instead of just sticking with the big names and belgiuming rebooting the story every third or fourth movie.

    Filed under: How many times do we really have to do Spider-Man or Batman's origin story?



  • @coderpatsy said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    This was hit on upthread, but I think one of the reasons MCU's doing so well comparatively is that they actually branch out and build off what they have, instead of just sticking with the big names and belgiuming rebooting the story every third or fourth movie.

    Filed under: How many times do we really have to do Spider-Man or Batman's origin story?

    Spider-man is a Marvel character. He just wasn't part of the MCU until Civil War.



  • @dkf said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    @masonwheeler Hmm, that might explain why I have next to no fix on any of this: Saturday mornings were orchestra practice for me. 🤷

    Sounds like those commitments have put you into quite a fiddle.



  • @abarker Then again, there's also the Fantastic Four to consider which are kind of prominent and yet all their movies have been duds :)


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @Rhywden Rise of the Silver Surfer was actually surprisingly good, particularly considering how it was a sequel to a really mediocre film. (Including IMO the best Stan Lee cameo of all time.)



  • Newer MCU movies aren't going that strong. The Ultron one sucked, and the last Iron Man I saw too.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Yamikuronue said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    @Maciejasjmj Batman is far and away their best. When he's not being their worst.

    0_1487679392052_upload-71b8bbd0-a625-484b-a035-ecb2535bb1c2

    And Batman's only really at his best when the Joker is involved.

    Actually, the Joker and Harley Quinn are my favorite parts of DC (not including vertigo and other labels) period, so I might be biased.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @Dreikin My work desktop is a drawing of Harley holding a potted plant and Ivy holding a hyena pup :)



  • @Yamikuronue said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    Static Shock was..... not the best DCAU property. I appreciate their attempt to be inclusive but... damn.

    Eh?
    I enjoyed it.



  • @RaceProUK said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    I have no interest in Ben Affleck

    Honestly I was skeptical too. But he isn't bad at all. Now, his Bruce Wayne is so bad I want to claw my eyes out.


  • kills Dumbledore

    @Rhywden said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    @abarker Then again, there's also the Fantastic Four to consider which are kind of prominent and yet all their movies have been duds :)

    IIRC, the film rights to the Fantastic 4 are held by another company, on the caveat that there's a film released every so often. So they rush through a film whenever the license is about to run out, purely for keeping the rights rather than making a good film. Not sure if there's a reason for this beyond keeping it out of the MCU



  • Just saw the new Quantumania trailer. It looks pretty good, and does a lot of things right. But there's one thing that really sticks out, and not in a good way. Watch it, and see if the big emotional impact line doesn't immediately sound suspiciously familiar:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WfTEZJnv_8

    Haven't we seen this before? "You will never win."
    "No, but I can lose. Again, and again, and again, and again forever. And that makes you my prisoner."
    "NO! STOP! MAKE THIS STOP! SET ME FREE!"
    "No, I've come to bargain."

  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Mason_Wheeler said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    But there's one thing that really sticks out, and not in a good way.

    It's Marvel?


  • BINNED

    @masonwheeler said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    @fbmac said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    His second and third Batman movie sucked

    FTFY

    The Nolan trilogy was the best thing to come out of DC movies, with the Dark Knight Rises (E: The second one!) in particular. Better than MCU, too.
    The later movies just plain suck. Compare to people masturbating over "The Znyder Cut". I watched that shit again, and I guess it is a lot better than the original cut, but it's still not good on its own.

    Best thing about it was still this:

    a891b016-df3a-45db-aeab-620ecb7c6d97-grafik.png


  • Notification Spam Recipient

    @topspin said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    The later movies just plain suck.

    Strong disagree, the latest Batman was fantastic. Also Joker, obviously.



  • @MrL said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    the latest Batman was fantastic

    Meh. Best thing to come out of that was demonstrated proof that vampires really do turn into bats.


  • BINNED

    @MrL said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    Joker

    Forgot about that, that was pretty good.


  • Notification Spam Recipient

    I suspect the critical drinker is right. They're not willing to put in the decade or so of work needed to build up a universe. End Game really was twenty-two or so movies long.

    They're trying to shortcut the process and get right to big bang epic showdowns but with no buy in from the audience it's not going to work well. If they're going for a build up getting rid of Cavil was the right idea. Give the audience someone to get invested in. but if they're doing what they've been doing so far they may as well have kept Cavil and tried to milk the audience.

    It's a pity about MCU though. If they ended on End Game they probably would be remembered fondly. Disney is just tarnishing it's good name by parcelling it up for content to fill a streaming service.


  • Notification Spam Recipient

    @DogsB said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    It's a pity about MCU though. If they ended on End Game they probably would be remembered fondly. Disney is just tarnishing it's good name by parcelling it up for content to fill a streaming service.

    Probably. What I observed among my friends is that people got invested in the MCU because of good first movies. They continued to watch, although they were not interested in some characters and quality was going down fast, because they got an idea that you have to watch it all hammered into their heads somehow.

    Gradually, one by one, they came to realization that they actually don't enjoy it at all (last MCU movie I liked was Guardians, that's 2014), but most still went to the cinema every time out of slavelike completionist mindset, or 'for the company', or because of lazyness preventing them from finding anything else to do. But all of them were fed up with it well before Endgame.

    Endgame marked the end of an era and people suddenly felt free of this bizarre obligation or scare of missing out, etc. A switch flipped in their heads and immediately after that it was ok to dunk on Marvel. Now none of my friends is interested in MCU, noone posts trailers and there are no proposals to go see it in the cinema.



  • @MrL said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    Batman

    Do you know that there were hard times for Batman?
    When he was still a boy, he had to endure severe mobbing:



  • @DogsB said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    If they ended on End Game they probably would be remembered fondly. Disney is just tarnishing it's good name by parcelling it up for content to fill a streaming service.

    They also snatched defeat form the jaws of victory by shoehorning Captain Marvel in at the last minute, including her own movie. What would've been good and made narrative sense:

    • Black Widow movie
    • Endgame
    • Captain Marvel introduced in whatever they're calling the post-Endgame trash fire

    What we got instead:

    • Captain Marvel: apparently she's been around since the 90s but nobody in the MCU ever heard of her before
    • Endgame - Black Widow gets spoilered
    • post Endgame: another flashback movie, Black Widow back when she was alive, but released long after everyone stopped giving even half a shit


  • @hungrier said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    They also snatched defeat form the jaws of victory by shoehorning Captain Marvel in at the last minute, including her own movie. What would've been good and made narrative sense:

    She was wasted, for sure. I mean, she was "crucial" to the plot insofar as she singlehandedly destroyed Thanos' fleet. But I wanted more from her. And she was even wasted in her own movie.

    The problem is that she's basically a cosmic-level Superman. She's strong and flies around.

    What we got instead:

    Captain Marvel: apparently she's been around since the 90s but nobody in the MCU ever heard of her before

    She was on the other side of the galaxy for like 15 years.

    I'm really enjoying phase 4. Loki and WandaVision were great. The Spiderman multiverse movies are awesome. Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness was Doctor Strange (that is, awesome if you like doctor strange but maybe not everyone's cup of tea)

    Haven't seen Morbius yet.

    Ms Marvel was a good low stakes origin story. (And it confirmed that there are mutants in the MCU, opening the door the the new Deadpool and Wolverine movie) So was Hawkeye, and She-Hulk for that matter. And even Moon Knight, I guess. A lot of people liked that one but I ended up not finishing it.

    Not sure why people are complaining about phase 4. They can't all be the end of a saga. I guess it could be like @MrL said; Endgame was the end of a ride, and people don't want to get on it again.

    Fair enough, but I'm still having fun.



  • @Captain said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    She was wasted, for sure. I mean, she was "crucial" to the plot insofar as she singlehandedly destroyed Thanos' fleet.

    Right, but without her the movie would've been written differently. As I suspect it was, before the aforementioned shoehorning at the last minute. Instead of CM appearing for five minutes at the beginning and again at the end, they could've had the movie with the heroes we knew from all the previous movies, and it would've been better for it.

    Phase 4 may have been better off too. If they introduced CM along with the other new characters, they wouldn't have to make excuses for why this character randomly showed up out of nowhere. But I guess the execs thought that they just had to get her into phase 3 no matter how badly it broke the flow of the series



  • @Captain said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    I'm really enjoying phase 4. Loki and WandaVision were great. The Spiderman multiverse movies are awesome.

    With you so far.

    Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness was Doctor Strange (that is, awesome if you like doctor strange but maybe not everyone's cup of tea)

    I disliked this for the same reason I disliked Rogue One: the trailers lied to me about what it was I was going to be seeing. Everything seemed to revolve around Wong's exhortation to Strange that he "should never have cast that spell" (presumably referring to No Way Home) which has broken multiversal things, and now he needed to fix them.

    That's what the film was supposed to be about, but that line was not in the movie at all. Heck, to be frank this wasn't even a Dr. Strange movie; it was a Wanda movie. This was a more intensely villain-centric film than anything else with the possible exception of Infinity War. Which leads into the next problem: they made Wanda the villain.

    It feels like someone chopped up the resolution of WandaVision, taking half of it and throwing away the crucial other half that gave it context, to create this Wanda. And it was terrible, completely turning the whole thing on its head, destroying her character and nullifying the character growth she'd had throughout the series.

    Meanwhile, the promised "multiverse of madness" was more hinted at than experienced. We got to experience two alternate worlds. One was more of a classical "alternate Earth" than anything, complete with ripping off the very first episode of Sliders to show that "everything is different here" in the exact same way. The other was finally a true world of madness, and was easily the best part of the film. (Yes, it did have a few good parts. Just... not very many.)

    Maybe I've just been watching too much Honest Trailers, but they really should have called it Scarlet Witch and the Multiverse Gets Mentioned.

    Ms Marvel was a good low stakes origin story. (And it confirmed that there are mutants in the MCU, opening the door the the new Deadpool and Wolverine movie)

    Ms. Marvel was really good for the first four episodes. 5 slipped quite a bit in quality, and 6, the climax, was an absolute disaster. After spending so much effort trying to show Muslim Americans in a good light, they leaned hard into all the worst stereotypes, turned our heroine into a straight-up psychopath, and applauded her for it!

    So was Hawkeye,

    Hawkeye was excellent, easily one of the best Phase 4 offerings.

    and She-Hulk for that matter.

    Gah. She-Hulk was... just wrong. Everything about it was wrong, and everything was wrong with it. Likely the worst thing the MCU has ever done, by a significant margin.

    And even Moon Knight, I guess. A lot of people liked that one but I ended up not finishing it.

    Moon Knight was... meh. Yeah, it exists. It's not really clear how or why it exists, though, or what it has to do with the wider MCU.

    Not sure why people are complaining about phase 4.

    Because its hit-to-miss ratio has been significantly lower than previous phases. Yes, it's had some great stuff, but it's also had a lot of trash, and it's had the worst trash so far, and that erases a lot of the goodwill earned from the good parts.


  • đźš˝ Regular

    @Mason_Wheeler

    Phase 4 has the following challenges:

    • It has to follow a quite epic concluding Phase 3 Boss Fight that killed one of the founders of the modern-day Avengers.

    • Because of COVID it had to make a few quick and drastic adjustments to its production and release schedules, relying more on streaming series. Now, clearly they were already planning to have Wandavision, Loki, and such before COVID was a thing, but I think it was supposed to complement some movies that were intended to be released simultaneously, which had to be pushed out.

    • It had the misfortune of starting with a bomb, Eternals, which was panned. I think it's hard to recover from that. Yes, two movies preceded it, but I think Eternals was meant to be a milestone movie that would introduce a lot of the core heroes that would carry the plot through the new saga.

    I would also gather that after Infinity War and Endgame, people sort of got... superheroed out. It formed a nice conclusion to Phase 3, which in turn concluded the Infinity Saga. For all intents and purposes, although we are using the same timeline, characters, and using Infinity as a continuity to the Multiverse Saga, the Multiverse Saga sort of "feels" like a reboot. There's a sense of a reset. We've defeated the Big Bad in the Infinity Saga, and now we're onto a whole new thing. So it's sort of like we're starting all over again with character development and a new plot where there's going to be an even BIGGER BAD, but it's going to take years to develop that into a Big Boss in the same vain as Thanos, all the while pausing every so often to mourn the loss of Iron Man for the millionth time.

    I've been an avid watcher of MCU up to Endgame, but after Endgame I felt sort of a fatigue. Add to that I also have kids and my schedule's made it more difficult to go out and watch movies, both in the theater and at home (the kids aren't quite old enough to watch MCU movies, not to mention they don't really have much of an interest in it anyways) so I've sort of been skipping movies, with the exception of Black Widow and Love and Thunder, plus I've watched a few episodes here and there of Loki and Wandavision. It's hard to catch up, though.



  • @The_Quiet_One said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    It had the misfortune of starting with a bomb, Eternals

    I've sort of been skipping movies, with the exception of Black Widow and Love and Thunder

    Three more Phase 4 stinkers. Most phases have had one.


  • BINNED

    @Mason_Wheeler said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    Meanwhile, the promised "multiverse of madness" was more hinted at than experienced.

    Reminds me that the "Age of Ultron" felt more like an "Afternoon of Ultron".


  • đźš˝ Regular

    @Mason_Wheeler Eh, Love and Thunder was okay. I put it on same level as the first Thor movie, which to me was more lackluster than the others. I know it's probably an unpopular opinion, but my thought about the first Thor is it was an important movie to introduce and set up one of the most entertaining villains in the franchise, and it did have Natalie Portman in it, which is a huge plus for me. But, by itself, the movie was just blah for me.


  • Java Dev

    I think we should replace the US DCU with the british DCU instead. I think that would bring greater success.


  • ♿ (Parody)



  • @boomzilla I think this is pretty much entirely wrong on the interpretation of the first point ("modern heroes don't kill their enemies").

    What is reveals is a reluctance on the part of modern Western culture to define actual evil. Everything must be nuanced.

    I'm guessing the writer is too young to remember anything before the recent movies, but this trend of "not killing their enemies" is far older than that. I hesitate to say it was true from the very beginning of superheroes in the 30's/40's, but I think it definitely was there in the Comics Code era (though AFAIK the code itself doesn't prohibit killings, but I don't think there were many).

    Also, and this will bring me to my own interpretation of all that, there are French/Belgian comics that were published just after WW2, in very tightly controlled "youth magazines" (e.g. publications officially sanctioned by the Catholic Church!). These comics (for example "Fripounet et Marisette") exhibit the exact same reluctance to kill anyone and always offer vilains a chance for redemption.

    Since these publications were officially published by the Church (or an arm thereof), they had no qualms in making explicit the moral reasons behind all actions (indeed, one could argue that the whole story was intended to reach those lessons). And they make very clear that offering redemption to villains is a moral strength for a good Christian.

    Now you may agree with that or not and that's not the point here, but I do think that this same moral framework is what underpins the "no killing" of superheroes. Not something about how villains aren't actually evil and some sort of moral relativism, as TFA implies, but on the contrary a very clear Christian morality that is much older than the "Marvel hero" (but not eternal either, I don't think an 18th century youth publication by the Church would have had this morality!).

    So yeah, I disagree with TFA on that specific part.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @remi said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    I'm guessing the writer is too young to remember anything before the recent movies, but this trend of "not killing their enemies" is far older than that. I hesitate to say it was true from the very beginning of superheroes in the 30's/40's, but I think it definitely was there in the Comics Code era (though AFAIK the code itself doesn't prohibit killings, but I don't think there were many).

    I guess you stopped reading before he talked about Superman and Batman?



  • @boomzilla I did read that, but he doesn't really make it sound like he thinks it's an old thing. Typically when he says that this "is because they are products of a Neo-liberal marvel morality," either he believes it's a recent thing, or that the "Neo-liberal marvel morality" existed before there even was a "Marvel."

    But regardless of that, I still think his interpretation of the thing is wrong.


  • Considered Harmful

    I remain unmoved by the current comic-book-universe offerings, as no studio has the balls to take on the Bazooka Joe oeuvre.


  • Banned

    @boomzilla said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    1.) Classical heroes kill their enemies. This is really their most essential job. The role of the hero archetype is to slay dragons and evil kings. Their purpose is to root out evil. They may show mercy on occasion, but this is not their primary role. Mercy-giver is the role of the king. The Folk Hero’s job is a violent one for the sake of good.

    However, your typical modern era hero story almost always includes a moment where the villain must be offered a chance for “rehabilitation”, or must stand trial, or where the hero does everything in his power to avoid using deadly force out of some moral reluctance. The modern hero is suspiciously full of reluctance to stamp out evil.

    You know what else changed between then and now? We realized what a terrible idea capital punishment is. A hero does what is considered morally good, imagine that.



  • @Gustav said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    You know what else changed between then and now? We realized what a terrible idea capital punishment is.

    Like so many other things that have been
    22450421-4480-4388-9c86-db76be80fbd5-image.png
    in the intervening years, some people proclaimed it based on flimsy-to-none levels of evidence, some more people picked up on it as Absolute Truth, societal changes were made, and things have gotten worse, not better, as a result.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Gustav said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    @boomzilla said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    1.) Classical heroes kill their enemies. This is really their most essential job. The role of the hero archetype is to slay dragons and evil kings. Their purpose is to root out evil. They may show mercy on occasion, but this is not their primary role. Mercy-giver is the role of the king. The Folk Hero’s job is a violent one for the sake of good.

    However, your typical modern era hero story almost always includes a moment where the villain must be offered a chance for “rehabilitation”, or must stand trial, or where the hero does everything in his power to avoid using deadly force out of some moral reluctance. The modern hero is suspiciously full of reluctance to stamp out evil.

    You know what else changed between then and now? We realized what a terrible idea capital punishment is. A hero does what is considered morally good, imagine that.

    There are plenty of moral reasons to kill another human.


  • Banned

    @Mason_Wheeler said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    some people proclaimed it based on flimsy-to-none levels of evidence, some more people picked up on it as Absolute Truth, societal changes were made, and things have gotten worse, not better, as a result.

    No different from some people proclaiming that one book should be treated like gospel.

    I, for one, believe not killing the wrong people anymore is a good change. Even if it means murderers now live in isolation rather than not living in isolation.

    Anyway, the point is that the modern society is different from historic societies and so it shouldn't be terribly surprising that what counts as heroic changed too. Doesn't make the heroes themselves any less heroic.



  • @boomzilla There's basically two; and under the law you're supposed to stop (i.e., not kill) if you can do so safely.



  • @Captain said in Why the MCU is succeeding where the DCU is failing:

    stop (i.e., not kill) if you can do so safely.

    Well....not really. You're supposed to stop. Full stop (pun intended). If they die as a result, that's generally not a legal problem. It's only when you intend to kill and take extra, unnecessary, steps to do so. Generally in cases where you have the knowledge (or should have the knowledge, reasonably) that the threat is stopped. There's a big difference there.

    I won't take sides on the larger debate, because superheros have always bored me. It's just punching each other, sometimes with lasers. Big flashy explosions, paper-thin meaningless worlds with crap for worldbuilding, inconsistent characterizations (both of people and of powers), and widespread willful blindness to consequences.

    Seriously--that fight in the first Avengers movie in NYC? Did almost as much damage to the city as the nuke would have. Yet is basically ignored except when it can serve as part of the paper backdrop for another set of big flashy punching matches (cf Civil War).


Log in to reply